Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

[St_Francis]

In fact if one thinks about it, when Rice was asking for persons to be unmasked, that means she didn’t know who they were. I don’t know why that point isn’t being brought up.

However, it IS very important that all suspects who may have been involved in national security harms or criminal activities be unmasked at least by those in authority to do so, and then if enough evidence shows they did indeed do something wrong their names should be made public. We can’t just let people get by with things.

In order to surveil US citizens or most residents, the government must get a warrant. Intelligence agencies spying on foreigners outside the US or a few in the US operate under a different system.

To surveil or spy on a US citizen or most residents, there must be evidence that a crime has been committed and that they are involved in the criminal activity.

When you think about it the really bad criminals and killers are the rich high on the corporate ladders who cause more property loss, white collar and corporate crime, harms, and deaths than street criminals. I think the number is about 10 times more deaths and a vastly huge amount of financial/property harm more than street criminals cause.

Evidence, please?

If Susan Rice found out some people who were implicated in threats to national security or any other criminal activities, good for her.

There is no evidence she found people so implicated. What she asked for was the identity of US citizens involved in conversation with people we were, for whatever reason, spying on. People from other nations do not need to be criminals for us to spy on them.

I think the whole reason the Trump admin is causing this stir as if Susan Rice were the guilty one is because they know they are guilty and want to create a smokescreen to hide behind.

Perhaps it’s the other way around.

 

[Reuben_J]

They are seeing Russians everywhere these days! lol

It is more of a deflection to cover up their crime of surveillance of US citizens and unmasking them (illegally). Probably the thinking is as long as people are preoccupied with Russia and Trump’s alleged connection with them, then they can justify their crime. The implication is staggering and when a Presidency stooped this low, one knows that it has gone down to the dogs.

 

[lynnvinc]

NO. It’s would be a clear abuse of power by Susan Rice. The SOLE purpose of foreign intel collection is to understand the workings and intentions of foreign powers and their operatives, not US citizens. If the government wants to understand the actions and intentions of American citizens, there are two proper and LEGAL ways to go about doing so, and it’s not through “incidental” foreign intel spying. It’s by (1) conducting a criminal investigation in which the American citizens can be targeted for court-authorized surveillance based on probable cause of a crime, or (2) conduct a FISA investigation in which the American citizens can be targeted for court-authorized surveillance based on probable cause that they are acting as agents of a foreign power. And if neither of those two alternatives is chosen, then American citizens are not supposed to be the subject of the intelligence collection effort, they are supposed to be protected.

Sounds good on paper, but as Snowden and Manning point out we are nearly all being surveilled, and now with the internet providers allowed to sell surveilled intel on us to anyone they please, we’re pretty much cooked.

So why not the big guys in power. They should also be surveilled. Just to make it fair. Including the surveillers, who also need to be surveilled.

I have no problem with US gov officials surveilling Trump and his tower and other residences (I imagine the Russians are already doing it). He has been involved in so many shady deals and court cases – when the court orders him to produce his emails, he deletes them; let’s get some surveillance of him deleting his emailed that have been ordered by court to be produced. Trump has been acting against and above the law for a very long time. He is one dude, along with any and all of his associate, who desperately need to be surveilled everywhere and at all times. And now that he is president they REALLY need to keep him under surveillance. That’s what we’re paying for tax dollars for – to keep America safe.

 

[Michael68]

Communism much? (I can never directly quote lynn because of all those words!)

 

[lynnvinc]

In order to surveil US citizens or most residents, the government must get a warrant. Intelligence agencies spying on foreigners outside the US or a few in the US operate under a different system.

To surveil or spy on a US citizen or most residents, there must be evidence that a crime has been committed and that they are involved in the criminal activity.

Evidence, please?

There is no evidence she found people so implicated. What she asked for was the identity of US citizens involved in conversation with people we were, for whatever reason, spying on. People from other nations do not need to be criminals for us to spy on them.

Perhaps it’s the other way around.

Anyway, we don’t know whether or not there were warrants and how implicated the US persons were in espionage or crimes, since it is classified info. Only time will tell.

Knowing human nature, I’m thinking there is fire for all this smoke coming from Trump and associates. Whether they did wrong or did it for money or power, only time will tell.

And most certainly Trump or someone high up in his circle gave Flynn the order to make a deal with the Russians. Military men don’t just go off on their own in such important areas.

But apparently the Susan Rice unmasking had nothing to do with Russia, so there might be other foreign shady dealing Trump and associates were involved in. Why were they even “incidentally” collected? That is a very big smoking gun.

 

[Michael68]

Anyway, we don’t know whether or not there were warrants and how implicated the US persons were in espionage or crimes, since it is classified info. Only time will tell.

Knowing human nature, I’m thinking there is fire for all this smoke coming from Trump and associates. Whether they did wrong or did it for money or power, only time will tell.

And most certainly Trump or someone high up in his circle gave Flynn the order to make a deal with the Russians. Military men don’t just go off on their own in such important areas.

But apparently the Susan Rice unmasking had nothing to do with Russia, so there might be other foreign shady dealing Trump and associates were involved in. Why were they even “incidentally” collected? That is a very big smoking gun.

We should surveill you to find out which tin foil hat society you belong to!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Anyway, we don’t know whether or not there were warrants and how implicated the US persons were in espionage or crimes, since it is classified info. Only time will tell.

Knowing human nature, I’m thinking there is fire for all this smoke coming from Trump and associates. Whether they did wrong or did it for money or power, only time will tell.

And most certainly Trump or someone high up in his circle gave Flynn the order to make a deal with the Russians. Military men don’t just go off on their own in such important areas.

But apparently the Susan Rice unmasking had nothing to do with Russia, so there might be other foreign shady dealing Trump and associates were involved in. Why were they even “incidentally” collected? That is a very big smoking gun.

At this point, the “Russia/Trump conspiracy” theories are devoid of any content.

On the other hand, it seems pretty certain that Susan Rice, who was a very close associate of Obama, was involved in surveillance of Trump people in circumstances that did not involve national security, was involved in disseminating the information gained and might have ordered the efforts in the first place.

To me, the real issue is not so much whether there were crimes committed in the Rice activity, but that it seems just another example of the Obama administration using the powers of the federal government to combat its political opponents, just as it did in the IRS scandal. Crimes are crimes and people go to jail for them, or might. But using state power and institutions to combat one’s political opponents is, if anything, worse.

The left is inherently totalitarian, yet up until the Obama administration it seemed content to simply contend in the political arena in ways consistent with a democratic society in which rights were respected whether they were well protected or not. And too, the Dem party was once tolerant of dissenting views within its own ranks. Now it’s different. There is virtually no dissent allowed within that party, and using government to confound and harass political opponents is simply accepted. This Rice business, to me, is far more ominous in that respect than whether Rice committed a crime or didn’t.

I don’t find the Repubs admirable in their recent chaotic behavior. But in a way it’s almost refreshing to see a party that isn’t monolithic and at least grudgingly accepts dissenting views within its ranks.

 

[Cathoholic]

Ridgerunner. You said:

The left is inherently totalitarian . . .

This is great insight.

WHY does the left effectively move society towards a form of totalitarianism? What is the “give away?” HOW can we tell?

Basing my answer upon insights from Pope John Paul II, I think they NEED to be inherently “totalitarian” as long as they hold their abortion views the way they do.

(This is not to say that any PERSON on “the left” is an abortion advocate. This is merely to recognize the POLITICAL sphere of abortion. And also to see how no “pro-life dissent” is allowed within the political limb of “the left”.)

Not ONE pro-lifer is allowed in politics on the left. NOT ONE (at least considering running for office on a national level).

And so when they RE-DEFINE PERSONS as LESS THAN persons . . . .pretty much anything goes.

And since this sacrificing of the innocent (on the altar of “choice”) goes against the very fiber of society’s being so deeply, MANY abolitionists will ALWAYS OPPOSE abortion (“abolitionists” in this sense are people who want to abolish abortion as a legal recourse. Abolitionists are people who always fight against the IDEA of a PERSON being defined as LESS than a person. Whether that denial is based upon the fact that they have black skin,or that denial of personhood is based upon their birth status, or if a government is DENYING the personhood based upon their ethnicity such as Jewish people have been, etc. etc.).

And as the word gets out what an “abortion” is, (it is not merely a “blob of tissue” as the school kids have been told many times) ABOLITIONIST numbers will continue to proliferate. Especially since (as Pope John Paul II has intimated in his Letter to the Family) the future belongs to the fertile so to speak. Openness to life has demographic consequences eventually.

And the purveyors of abortion can see this. And it intimidates them.

The very message of PRO-LIFE is a stench to the abortion activist power-brokers positions of power (and it irritates their conscience as well).

2nd CORINTHIANS 2:14-16a 14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life… . . .

Regarding abortion and power and totalitarianism, Pope John Paul II the Great put it this way . . . .

POPE JOHN PAUL II THE GREAT This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and **inalienable right to life is questioned or denied **on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?” 16 When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34). — Pope John Paul II the Great from Evangelium Vitae section 20.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

And as you said Ridgerunner, the totalitarianistic approaches to governance seem to be deepening.

The left is inherently totalitarian, yet up until the Obama administration it seemed content to simply contend in the political arena in ways consistent with a democratic society in which rights were respected whether they were well protected or not. And too, the Dem party was once tolerant of dissenting views within its own ranks. Now it’s different. There is virtually no dissent allowed within that party, and using government to confound and harass political opponents is simply accepted.

 

[J_Peterson]

And as you said Ridgerunner, the totalitarianistic approaches to governance seem to be deepening.

With the worldwide rise in right wing nationalism, I think you may be right.

 

[St_Francis]

Anyway, we don’t know whether or not there were warrants and how implicated the US persons were in espionage or crimes, since it is classified info. Only time will tell.

Knowing human nature, I’m thinking there is fire for all this smoke coming from Trump and associates. Whether they did wrong or did it for money or power, only time will tell.

Well, there may be fire. In which case, why has no evidence come out? As far as I can tell, the only evidence for Russian hacking is a report by a private firm, and the appropriate government entity has either been denied (FBI) or never requested (DNC) access to the hacked equipment.

All the rest of the “smoke” is dependent on the Russians having done something illicit to affect our election. If the Russians kept their hands clear of the election, then there is no collusion between Trump, et al, and Russia.

---

The is a good case to be made, in terms of your metaphor, that the Dems are tossing around smoke bombs and there is no fire at all. That is another aspect of human nature.

And most certainly Trump or someone high up in his circle gave Flynn the order to make a deal with the Russians. Military men don’t just go off on their own in such important areas.

We have no idea what occurred in the conversations, except that the topic of sanctions did come up. The problem we know about is the Flynn lied to Pence.

Flynn was a short time away from starting a job the nature of which would allow him to speak in the way he did to the man with whom he spoke. He was part of a *transition, *and he was transiting. Lyng to Pence was what got him asked to resign.

But apparently the Susan Rice unmasking had nothing to do with Russia, so there might be other foreign shady dealing Trump and associates were involved in.

Apparently some of the inmasking did have to do with Russia:
In many instances, one official said, she did it to understand, per Obama’s request, how far Russian meddling in the presidential election had gone and whether or not there was any possible collusion with Trump officials.

Rice alluded to that Russia probe in her interview, saying it was of “grave concern.” Ultimately, she said no evidence of collusion between Russian officials and Trump associates was found, and that finding was shared by the intelligence community in a report at the end of Obama’s term.

(Look over this last paragraph carefully…)

[quoteW Why were they even “incidentally” collected? That is a very big smoking gun.
[/QUOTE]
They were “incidentally” collected because they had conversations with people who were being listened to. Mr X, the subject of the listening, would have talked with many people: caterers for a party he was throwing, his doctor, his child’s teacher…

… and possibly business and government people.

 

[lynnvinc]

Well, there may be fire. In which case, why has no evidence come out? As far as I can tell, the only evidence for Russian hacking is a report by a private firm, and the appropriate government entity has either been denied (FBI) or never requested (DNC) access to the hacked equipment…

There’s quite a bit more re Russian interference than the DNC hack. You can read about it in the House and hear about it in the Senate hearings on the issue:

“Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election”
washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/?utm_term=.27e97fc170aa

Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing:
c-span.org/video/?426227-1/senate-intelligence-panel-warned-russians-play-sides

Since the investigation is early in the process, I imagine there will be a lot more coming out. Also, much of it is classified at this point and they cannot comment. For instance, revealing what they know might tip the Russians off to how they got that info, which they do not want to do, at least at this point. However, eventually we will know more of the complete story.

It took about two years for the Watergate investigation to yield enough evidence to be conclusive re the crime and cover-up by Nixon and associates. It seems the Russian-Trump thing will happen faster, maybe within a year, but maybe as long or longer than Watergate.

My continued hope is that Trump himself is innocent and that all parties that may have been working in coordination with the Putin regime this time (wittingly or unwittingly) are now out of gov positions or the ring of influence.

And hopefully this will be a very good lesson for Americans not to join forces with hostile foreign nations against our own government and society.

 

[lynnvinc]

We should surveill you to find out which tin foil hat society you belong to!

That sounds mean (but I did not report it).

It also makes me realize that the way the media are split up into various political ideologies nowadays makes people live in different worlds with different realities.

From what I glean by comments here at CAF, people who follow right-wing media are fed a lot of lies and highly biased info. Like global warming is a hoax. That alone has made me steer completely clear of right-wing media. If the right-wing media are telling viewers that GW is a hoax, then they are surely spreading many more lies and deceit, including the grain-of-truth-meant-to-deceive type of lies, in which many people now live. It should be noted that “GW is a hoax” is not an ideological or opinion type of thing or dispute about which policy to follow to address a problem – it is a denial of facts. That is serious, tarnishing the whole of right-wing media from being in any way reliable.

EWTN news programs and a few of their other programs are also somewhat corrupted (but more mildly) by right-wing ideology and anti-environment falsehoods, so I don’t watch those programs, though I do like most of EWTN’s other programs that are not biased in that way.

The mainstream media are not dishonest the way the right-wing media are, but what they do when their sponsors might not like a story or certain facts is they just simply ignore them. As in “Broadcast News Abandons Climate Change Coverage, Study Finds” huffingtonpost.com/entry/broadcast-news-climate-change_us_58d42ac8e4b0b22b0d1b2135

I find the more progressive Free Speech TV (esp Democracy Now!) and Ring of Fire TV (on the internet) to be pretty good, tho I don’t agree with all their positions (they tend to be pro-choice). At least they are free of corporate funding and influence. And they are not afraid to cover climate change and many other environment & big pharma harm stories in an honest way. And they cover a much wider range of stories, like the Berta Caceres story.

To get a better scoop on climate change, I read peer-reviewed scientific articles in top tier science journals (at least their abstracts), or to make it easier for lay understanding, one can read Pope Francis’s LAUDATO SI – see w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.

We surely need God’s help in finding the truth.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The WMD attack by Syria got Susan Rice off the front page very quickly.

 

[Reuben_J]

The WMD attack by Syria got Susan Rice off the front page very quickly.

Hopefully she will not get away with it and hopefully it will lead to her boss so that the whole mystery would be uncovered.

 

[Michael68]

I completely disagree with post #170, but hey, we all have our opinions

 

[Ridgerunner]

With the worldwide rise in right wing nationalism, I think you may be right.

Neither leaves much to be desired, but as a peasant/petit bourgeois, I fear left authoritarianism a lot more than I do right authoritarianism. At least there is a reasonable expectation the right won’t brand me a “kulak” and haul me off to some Gulag.

 

[lynnvinc]

I completely disagree with post #170, but hey, we all have our opinions

Well, I guess meanness is in the eyes of the victim.

 

[Michael68]

Well, I guess meanness is in the eyes of the victim.

Sorry Lynn, I was mean. That we agree on. That’s about it.

 

[St_Francis]

There’s quite a bit more re Russian interference than the DNC hack. You can read about it in the House and hear about it in the Senate hearings on the issue:

“Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election”
washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/?utm_term=.27e97fc170aa

Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing:
c-span.org/video/?426227-1/senate-intelligence-panel-warned-russians-play-sides

I read quite a lot of the first one, and all I saw was, as I kentioned elsewhere:
Q. Innuendo, speculation, hypothetical events?

A. I can’t comment in a ongoing investigation.

This is not testimony *of *anything. The testimony comes from the person who answers, not the questioner.

I also read quite a lot of another one, which may have been the same one you have posted, only to see that it was a lot more of the same sort of thing.

If there is annything *of substance *in these hearings, I would be happy if someone familiar with the transcripts or videos could post some way of finding it, as I simply do not have time to wade through all the non-testimonial questions and answers of no comment. Even a unique phrase that one could search for on the page would be helpful, but posting hours and hours of video or related transcipts on their own is not helpful.

Since the investigation is early in the process, I imagine there will be a lot more coming out. Also, much of it is classified at this point and they cannot comment. For instance, revealing what they know might tip the Russians off to how they got that info, which they do not want to do, at least at this point. However, eventually we will know more of the complete story.

It took about two years for the Watergate investigation to yield enough evidence to be conclusive re the crime and cover-up by Nixon and associates. It seems the Russian-Trump thing will happen faster, maybe within a year, but maybe as long or longer than Watergate.

It did not take anywhere near that long to establish that *something had occurred, *however.

My continued hope is that Trump himself is innocent and that all parties that may have been working in coordination with the Putin regime this time (wittingly or unwittingly) are now out of gov positions or the ring of influence.

I hope Trump and everyone else is innocent of complicity and that thisnwill be accepted and acknowledged soon. This circus is creating its own mess when we need to think about what we are doing.

And hopefully this will be a very good lesson for Americans not to join forces with hostile foreign nations against our own government and society.

I think most of us kinda get that…

 

[Michael68]

I don’t know why they keep pushing these hearings. Nothing came out of them! We are still at zero evidence for Trump and Russian collusion, yet we do have evidence the Democrats were trying to interfere in the election.